Ads


George Weigel

view all featured authors »

Converts and The Symphony of Truth

Why do adults become Catholics?

There are as many reasons for “converting” as there are converts. Evelyn Waugh became a Catholic with, by his own admission, “little emotion but clear conviction”: this was the truth; one ought to adhere to it. Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote that his journey into the Catholic Church began when, as an unbelieving Harvard undergraduate detached from his family’s staunch Presbyterianism, he noticed a leaf shimmering with raindrops while taking a walk along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.; such beauty could not be accidental, he thought—there must be a Creator. Thomas Merton found Catholicism aesthetically, as well as intellectually, attractive: Once the former Columbia free-thinker and dabbler in communism and Hinduism found his way into a Trappist monastery and became a priest, he explained the Mass to his unconverted friend, poet Robert Lax, by analogy to a ballet. Until his death in 2007, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger insisted that his conversion to Catholicism was not a rejection of, but a fulfillment of, the Judaism into which he was born; the cardinal could often be found at Holocaust memorial services reciting the names of the martyrs, including “Gisèle Lustiger, ma maman” (“my mother”).

Two of the great nineteenth-century converts were geniuses of the English language: theologian John Henry Newman and poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. This tradition of literary converts continued in the twentieth-century, and included Waugh, Graham Greene, Edith Sitwell, Ronald Knox, and Walker Percy. Their heritage lives today at Our Savior’s Church on Park Avenue in New York, where convert author, wit, raconteur and amateur pugilist George William Rutler presides as pastor.

In early American Catholicism, the fifth archbishop of Baltimore (and de facto primate of the United States), Samuel Eccleston, was a convert from Anglicanism, as was the first native-born American saint and the precursor of the Catholic school system, Elizabeth Anne Seton. Mother Seton’s portrait in the offices of the archbishop of New York is somewhat incongruous, as the young widow Seton, with her children, was run out of New York by her unforgiving Anglican in-laws when she became a Catholic. On his deathbed, another great nineteenth-century convert, Henry Edward Manning of England, who might have become the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury but became the Catholic archbishop of Westminster instead, took his long-deceased wife’s prayer book from beneath his pillow and gave it to a friend, saying that it had been his spiritual inspiration throughout his life.

If there is a thread running through these diverse personalities, it may be this: that men and women of intellect, culture and accomplishment have found in Catholicism what Blessed John Paul II called the “symphony of truth.” That rich and complex symphony, and the harmonies it offers, is an attractive, compelling and persuasive alternative to the fragmentation of modern and post-modern intellectual and cultural life, where little fits together and much is cacophony. Catholicism, however, is not an accidental assembly of random truth-claims; the Creed is not an arbitrary catalogue of propositions and neither is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It all fits together, and in proposing that symphonic harmony, Catholicism helps fit all the aspects of our lives together, as it orders our loves and loyalties in the right direction.

You don’t have to be an intellectual to appreciate this “symphony of truth,” however. For Catholicism is, first of all, an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14.6). And to meet that person is to meet the truth that makes all the other truths of our lives make sense. Indeed, the embrace of Catholic truth in full, as lives like Blessed John Henry Newman’s demonstrate, opens one up to the broadest possible range of intellectual encounters.

Viewed from outside, Catholicism can seem closed and unwelcoming. As Evelyn Waugh noted, though, it all seems so much more spacious and open from the inside. The Gothic, with its soaring vaults and buttresses and its luminous stained glass, is not a classic Catholic architectural form by accident. The full beauty of the light, however, washes over you when you come in.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

1.11.2012 | 8:33am
Mick Leahy says:
George, don't forget GK Chesterton, a wonderful convert, his apologetics are still invaluable.
1.11.2012 | 11:03am
Stuart Koehl says:
My experience was somewhat different. Unlike all those mentioned in Mr. Weigel's article, I was baptized at the age of forty into the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, an Eastern Catholic Church that follows the Byzantine-Orthodox rite. But I could just as easily have become Eastern Orthodox, and in many ways that would have greatly simplified my life, since being an Eastern Catholic is just one continuing series of misunderstandings, compromises and heartbreak.

When I decided to become a Byzantine (or "Greek") Catholic, I had a lot of what seemed like good reasons for doing so: the fractious jurisdictionalism of the Orthodox Churches in the United States, the need for a focus of unity, and above all the towering moral witness of Pope John Paul II. In retrospect, none of those seem that convincing to me today. There is just as much jurisdictionalism among Eastern Catholics (made worse by the constant interference of the Vatican in our internal affairs); there is also a confusion of identity among us sustained by the mixed messages emanating from the Holy See; and the constant need to justify one's own existence and beliefs not only to the Orthodox (with whom most of us have very cordial relations here), but with our fellow Roman Catholics, who are not quite convinced that we are kosher and are always trying to tell us what me "must" believe and do in order to be "real" Catholics.

Today, I just tell myself that I am a Greek Catholic because that is where God wanted me to be, and I have found quite a great deal of fulfillment in the vocation of the Eastern Catholics, which is nothing less than demonstrating to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike the possibility of being truly Eastern in liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline, while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome.

As for the reasons for my conversion: I grew up in a fairly non-observant family of mixed Jewish and Protestant background, and spent most of my youth in an agnostic state of mind. Over time, I became convinced of God's existence (mainly through inexplicable acts of divine providence), and then of the historical reality of Jesus Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. As is often the case, having children was a catalyst for action, and my wife and I decided to be baptized.

Though neither of us is of Slavic or Greek ancestry, we had been very deeply immersed in the study of Russian language, history and culture, and were deeply attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy. And, as the Russian Primacy Chronicle asserts, it was the ineffable beauty of the Divine Liturgy that drew us in to the Eastern Church, not any rational argument or structured apologetics. Quite simply, "We did not know if we were in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such beauty. But this we do know, that God dwells there among men". To be exposed to that beauty is to know that what the Liturgy proclaims is true, and that was quite enough for us.

But to be quite honest, I find the same truth present in both the Greek Catholic and the Orthodox Church. Today I worship at a Melkite Greek Catholic church, whose parallel is the Antiochian Orthodox Church. The latter uses exactly the same liturgy, the same calendar, the same Creed, the same theology and doctrine, the same spirituality as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church--yet for some reason, I am not supposed to receive communion there. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has a different liturgy, a different calendar, a different Creed, a different theology and doctrine--but I am allowed to receive communion there. Such is the ambivalence of the Greek Catholic position, especially for one who espouses the ideal of being an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome.

For me, the truth of the faith will always be present in the Liturgy and the Eucharist, both of which are shared by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches equally; and I look forward to the day when I, and the rest of my Greek Catholic brethren, can return to our Mother Churches through the reestablishment of communion between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy.
1.11.2012 | 2:10pm
Lukas Halim says:
Which Melkite Church, Stuart? I'm a parishoner at Holy Transfiguration in McLean (and, since my wife is Orthodox, I also attend at St. Mary's Orthodox Church in Falls Church)
1.11.2012 | 2:22pm
Constantine says:
Unfortunately the “Symphony of Truth”, like most symphonies today, is playing to fewer and fewer people. According to the Pew Research Center, Catholics leave the church by a ratio of 4:1 for those that come into it. Pew further finds that ex-Catholics in the United States would be the second largest denomination were they so affiliated. So while Mr. Weigel's high profile examples might make for good copy, the reality seems to be that he is whistling past the graveyard.

High profile individuals who converted away from Rome constitute an equally impressive list: Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Calvin, Martin Luther. More contemporary examples: Tom Hanks, Madeleine Albright, Hugh Hewitt, Tim Pawlenty, John Kasich and Sarah Palin.


The more interesting question for Mr. Weigel would seem to be, why do so many adults become non-Catholics?

Peace.
1.11.2012 | 2:41pm
arty says:
The "symphony of truth" analogy is an excellent one. I'm married to a Catholic and attend mass weekly, though I've not converted. Frankly, a "symphony of truth" is what I've been waiting to hear and have yet to, although to be fair, maybe that's just because of my ingrown modern suspicion of any human institution that claims to have that many of the answers.
1.11.2012 | 3:44pm
Bill Russell says:
While one prays that none be lost and all be saved, if I had a list of people I'd not miss in church on Sunday, it would include most of those names "Constantine" mentions. Perhaps my ardor for souls is weak, forgive me, but I have never looked around me at Mass and said to myself, "If only Madeleine Albright were here..."
1.11.2012 | 3:45pm
Well, Constantine, I don't think Tom Hanks and Sarah Palin are as impressive as Walker Percy and Thomas Merton, but your point is well taken.
1.11.2012 | 3:51pm
The Moz says:
Wonderful article. Lots of intellectual adults looking for more than the simplified worldview presented by the secularists are attracted to the deep well of truth and mystery that is the Church.

The Church is growing by leaps and bounds all over the world except in the tired West. But give it time and they'll be back. It's been this way for more than 2,000 years now and I have a feeling will continue for another 2,000.
1.11.2012 | 3:59pm
Randy says:
I'm also a convert. I discovered that the Church (THE Church) is older than the New Testament (quite a bit older,) and they actually wrote the New Testament under Divine inspiration. And speaking of the New Testament, for Catholics, there are no parts of it that you have to ignore, or massage away. Wow. And when the disagreements come, Catholics have referees all the way up the chain, to the Bishop of Rome. You don't have to split into separate denominations, until you have thousands of denominations to choose from, or more likely, thousands of ways to get things a little bit wrong. So, like many before me, studying Church history brought me to Rome. Now that I'm Catholic, I don't understand why anybody leaves.
1.11.2012 | 4:07pm
Gary says:
I converted to Catholicism as a 30-year-old former Baptist-turned-Quaker-turned-Buddist. In the beginning, I was, like Merton, drawn to the aesthetic dimensions of Catholic worship. I fell in love with liturgy and incense and the mystery of it all. Later, I became convinced of the intellectual, moral, and religious truth of Catholic teaching. And of late, I am finally arriving at the ultimate purpose of the Catholic faith experience: a direct, personal relationship with Jesus as Lord and Redeemer. I guess my point is, each of these historical converts Weigel describes exemplified one of many doorways into the Catholic Church, doors all of us might pass through at some point in our faith formation.
1.11.2012 | 4:46pm
Mick Leahy says:
Constantine, to me the list of converts-in dwarfs, in quality, the list of converts-out you present. If you read St. Athanasius, you will see that those who have been privileged with The Truth and abandoned it will have a lot more explaining to do, when their Time comes, than those who were unlucky enough never to have known it. Whether something is The Truth or not is not influenced by human opinion, but for myself, I'd give more credit to the opinions of Chesterton or Newman than Luther or Rousseau (not to mention your list of contemporaries).
Stuart, chin up, the divisions that are upsetting you shouldn't be given such importance. If you regard the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, you are a Catholic as far as I am concerned, full-stop.
God bless you all.
1.11.2012 | 5:01pm
JohnE says:
Constantine,
Sarah Palin may have been baptized Catholic, but my understanding is that her family left Catholicism while she was young. Hugh Hewitt seems to have left due to the liturgical silliness and weak leadership that even faithful Catholics deplore. Tim Pawlenty and Madelein Albright appear to have left to be united in the religious profession of their spouses. I'm not saying that no one leaves the Catholic Church for doctrinal issues, or that adults don't also convert to Catholicism for non-doctrinal reasons. But if they were cards, I think George Weigel's is clearly a stronger hand. I could be wrong, but I'm not getting the impression that many of the conversions from Catholicism in your list were due to hearing some sort of symphonic harmony of truth in their new-found religion.
1.11.2012 | 5:34pm
Imdb says:
Gary, your story is very inspirational to hear. How long did it take you to realize that you wanted to follow Jesus Christ instead of all your previous religions? It seems like anyone can change,e even those mentioned on JohnE's high profile list.
1.11.2012 | 5:45pm
arty says:
re: Gary's comment above, I come from a Quaker background myself, and I guess I've just never lost my distaste for the "church-as-institution," to reference Dulles' terminology in "Models of the Church." If the church must have an institutional character, then I'd imagine that someday I'll cross the Tiber, along with my intellectual betters such as Chesterton, Newman and Dulles. For now, though, I see too many downsides--in the actual lives of the actual Catholics I know--of the church-as-institution model, for me to hear much of the symphony Weigel hears.

Maybe I'm just "tone-deaf" as it were, but all of the small-"o" orthodox versions of the gospel look to me about equally matched in their abilities to provide an environment that moves the Christian towards eternal bliss, and I've never seen any convincing evidence that the downsides of one so outweigh the downsides of another, that conversion is not just possible, but intellectually obligatory.
1.11.2012 | 6:25pm
Leo Ladenson says:
Like Stuart, I too am a Greek Catholic though not a cradle one. Stuart seems to find it a burden, while I find it a blessing. I am able to say with the great St. Maximos the Confessor that I am Greek in language but Roman in faith!
1.11.2012 | 7:16pm
savvy says:
Tom Hanks was Eastern Orthodox rather than Catholic, and if he believes in the Da Vinci Hoax, he won't qualify as even a Christian.
1.11.2012 | 7:59pm
Bop says:
@Leo Ladenson
Maximos said that? Where?
1.11.2012 | 9:18pm
friv-4.com says:
I guess my point is, each of these historical converts Weigel describes exemplified one of many doorways into the Catholic Church, eminfo doors all of us might pass through at some point in our faith formation.
1.11.2012 | 9:27pm
edmond says:
Constantine, scripture will show that the falling out started as early as during Jesus Christ's public declaration that He was the bread of life as in John 6:66
"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." There was nothing wrong with Christ's teaching, it was really the lack of understanding of those that chose to leave. Tom Hanks and the other celebs that were mentioned that left the faith never were iconic catholics so it was really their loss. Jesus did not stop the disciples from leaving, probably because they were not predisposed to serving Him at all and were hangin out because of the miracles and free lunches. Many are called...
1.11.2012 | 9:29pm
lisag says:
What I have understood is that adult converts convert for intellectual reasons. They study and research Catholicism to death. They come to understand that the Catholic church is the faith of the early church fathers. I am so glad that they have done all of the work for cradle Catholics. I did not practice my Catholic faith in my twenties and thirties, but I never sought out another faith or Christian denomination. I knew where the Truth was. I just needed to realize I needed that Truth in my daily life. I am still learning and growing in my love of Catholicism everyday.
1.11.2012 | 10:10pm
Gary says:
Imdb: Growing up as a Baptist, a personal relationship with Christ was something I already understood, but when I became disenchanted with the Baptist expression of Christian faith I also temporarily rejected the notion of a personal God. If God isn't a personal being, there is no possibility for a personal relationship. But I was incurably Christian and continued to look for a way to reframe my own understanding of Christianity in a way that "worked" for me. Quakerism led me to Buddhism and other Eastern religions, which led me to the mystical and contemplative expressions of Christianity, which ultimately led me back to Christianity - and Catholicism. And, eventually, to God as Father and Christ as Lord and King.

arty: I guess my response to your concerns about the failings of the church as an institution is that, as the words of the Mass express, we are a "pilgrim" church and so are always a flawed and broken image of what we are intended to be. But the Church is also the Body of Christ: for all the failings of the people IN the church (including some of our pastors), the Church itself is where we experience and encounter Christ Himself.
1.11.2012 | 11:58pm
Arty writes:

"For now, though, I see too many downsides--in the actual lives of the actual Catholics I know--of the church-as-institution model, for me to hear much of the symphony Weigel hears. "

"Get thee with child a mandrake root." If one picks a church based on the actual lives of the actual members, one is going to end up disappointed whatever church one chooses "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED...."

The proper way to pick a Christian Church is to read the Bible and choose the church that meets the biblical evidence of the one church Jesus founded (First Century foundation; central organization and apostolic succession). That eliminates all protestant churches because none of them were founded in the First Century AD. As between those churches that can claim roots in the First Century AD (to simplify, concentrate on the Eastern and Western churches that at least subscribe to the First Seven Ecumenical councils), the choice is a bit more contentious. I'd suggest faithfulness to the Agreement between the Eastern and Western Churches signed at the Council of Florence-Ferrara is a good starting point for that analysis.
1.12.2012 | 7:48am
Stuart Koehl says:
Lukas,

I'm at Transfiguration, too. I started attending about four years ago, when the Ruthenians butchered their liturgy.
1.12.2012 | 10:03am
Yeah, but Rousseau converted before leaving the Church.

So he gets counted twice.

Edward Gibbon too.
1.12.2012 | 12:35pm
Crowhill says:
I think Mr. Weigel is close to the mark when he says 'men and women of intellect, culture and accomplishment have found in Catholicism what Blessed John Paul II called the “symphony of truth.”'

There does seems to be an "intellect first" attitude among converts. Practical matters -- will I grow spiritually?, will my children learn the faith?, will I be able to use my gifts?, will the church support the moral views I want in my family and in society? -- seem to take a back seat to a kind of nit-picky, over-intellectual assessment of the options.

Or at least that happens with some people. See this, for example.

http://dontconvert.wordpress.com/why-conservative-evangelicals-should-not-become-catholic/
1.12.2012 | 1:50pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Bop

See PG 90, 128C.
1.12.2012 | 1:52pm
Leo Ladenson says:
@Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ

Along with Rousseau and Gibbon, there is a third famous 18/c convert who later fell away: Dr. Johnson's biographer, James Boswell.
1.12.2012 | 4:13pm
Michael says:
Like 9:46-50 seems a good verse to keep in mind during discussions like this, especially verse 50. Which tradition has the best writers, oldest liturgy, our longest continuous governance structure hardly seems the point.
1.12.2012 | 5:31pm
MegavIdeo says:
@Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ and Leo Landenson
This is pretty amazing. I didn't know about either of these before. Are there any other famous converts?
1.12.2012 | 5:50pm
arty says:
Patrick didn't read what I wrote. I was evincing skepticism as to the notion that what Jesus intended to found was an institution. Now, maybe I'm wrong, and lots of very smart people think I am. But Patrick's response ignores the fact that I was questioning the existence of church-as-institution in the first place.

In any event, I don't see what is wrong with evaluating an institution, in part, on the effects it has on its members. I would have thought that "All have sinned" was too obvious to need stating, but apparently not. On a nearly daily basis, I watch the Catholics I know deal with the negative psychological consequences of an excessive reliance on the church-as-institution: I don't think this is an irrelevant observation on my part. This isn't to say that other church models don't present their own negatives, just that I can see that one is so obviously better than another that it evince the symphony Weigel hears.
1.12.2012 | 8:40pm
Don Roberto says:
Let's not forget Richard John Neuhaus!

The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Solo scriptura = multi interpretura.

1.13.2012 | 9:02am
ctd says:
Certainly, people leave the Catholic Church, but I think Weigel's point, which has been documented by others, is that among intellectuals converts since the mid-nineteenth century there have been more converting to the Catholic faith than from it.
1.13.2012 | 10:48am
These are all very sincere comments.....but as sincere as everyone is....some are wrong....and the reason I know...is that Jesus says in the scriptures...that there will be those who say, ''Lord, Lord didn't we do this in your name and that in your name...'' and here is the scary part...he will say, ''Depart from me....I never knew you.'' The most sobering verse, in my opinion, in the entire Bible. I have to look at the example of the thief on the cross who in simple faith trusted in the one being murdered on the cross next to him and was given assurance that he would be in paradise with Jesus that day.
1.13.2012 | 2:30pm
Arty writes in response to me:
"I was evincing skepticism as to the notion that what Jesus intended to found was an institution....Patrick's response ignores the fact that I was questioning the existence of church-as-institution in the first place. "

This is a very unbiblical view. Jesus clearly intended to found an institution with an overall pastor, to whom God spoke directly. Matt. 16:18, et seq.; Matt. 18:15-17; John 21:15 et seq. Acts:10: 9-20. That is why He left instructions with the apostles on Ascension Thursday and told them that they were to be His witnesses to the ends of the Earth. Acts 1:1-9. Indeed, His instructions to them that day are known as the Great Commission and it covered the World as a whole. Matt. 28:18-20.

The apostles clearly thought that the church was to be an institution. That is why Peter established an election process for a replacement for Judas to the apostolate (Acts 1: 15-26), and why he left the Jerusalem church to James when Peter went on the lam after his breakout from Herod's jail (Acts 12: 3-18).

That is also why Peter came back to Jerusalem at the time of the Council called to resolve Paul's issues with James's judaizers and called for a ruling (Acts 15:7-9) that would be binding not just on Antioch or Jerusalem but on the Church generally (Acts 16:3-5). The circulating letter that was the result of the institutional deliberations of the Universal Church (Acts 15: 22-29) can be said to be the first encyclical of the Catholic Church.

Paul clearly thought the Church was an institution. As Brother Luke reports, Paul saw himself as having continuing authority over the presbyters of Ephesus (exercised by calling them to the first recorded synod) even after he moved to another location and those presbyters in turn had been appointed to oversee the church that God had acquired with His own blood. Acts 20:17-28. Paul saw the authority to proclaim the gospel as having been conferred on appointed teachers through ordination. 2 Tim. 1:6,13-14, 2:2-3.

The claim that the Church spoken of in the Bible is somehow an "invisible church" falls apart when the Bible is actually read: invisible churches don't have councils and bishops and . There is more to the Bible than the false gospel of "Faith Alone" see, e.g., James 2:24) but Protestant pastors have to ignore it because if they paid attention to the real New Testament, they would have to search for the real Church founded in the First Century AD.
1.18.2012 | 2:22am
I find it interesting how some of the most influential philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries were at some point rather devout Catholics but then left. Off the top of my head, i'm thinking especially of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Franz Brentano, Martin Heidegger, Max Scheler, Michel Foucault, Marucie Merleau-Ponty, Jacques Lacan, Pierre Hadot, Umberto Eco, Alfred North Whitehead(well, he came close to being Catholic, but then decided against it, so maybe he shouldn't be on this list, but he at least was searching for the 'symphony of truth'.)

It's hard to explain all these cases away as simply being lack of proper formation, or too strong inclination of vice, some of them, yes, but certainly not all. I wonder what(if anything) Mr. Weigel would say that this other group of witnesses means.
1.18.2012 | 4:29pm
Helena says:
"Viewed from outside, Catholicism can seem closed and unwelcoming. As Evelyn Waugh noted, though, it all seems so much more spacious and open from the inside."

This was exactly the opposite of my experience. From the outside, Catholicism has so much to offer! But it's hard to actually become Catholic without losing a lot in exchange.
2.1.2012 | 4:04pm
George H. says:
@Helena
I agree. Catholicism has a ton to offer and my experience is that those at my local churches are eager to have new visitors.
3.1.2012 | 12:18am
As a Jew, I resisted in the worst way, when I realized I was being called by God to enter the Church. In truth, my conversion started thirty years before I was baptized. Unlike Avery Dulles, I did not see a drop of water on a beautiful leaf, but rather a small sparrow sitting on a naked tree during the late Autumn, his small dark eyes looking back at me. At that moment I fell in love with creation, and my despair vanished. At that moment I realized that I was created by Love for love. The rest, as they say, is history.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact